Telangana High Court
Smt.Yadamma , K.Y.Laxmi vs Dr.S.P.Raja Manohar on 15 March, 2024
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: K.Lakshman, P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.187 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Smt. Justice P.Sree Sudha) This Family Court Appeal is filed against the Order dated 09.02.2012 in O.P.No.216 of 2008 passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.
2. One Dr.S.P.Raja Manohar/petitioner-husband filed O.P for divorce against her wife Yadamma allias K.Y.Lasxmi/ respondent-wife under Section 13 (ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The petitioner in the trial Court examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A8. Respondent examined herself as R.W.1 and also examined R.Ws.2 to 6 and also marked Exs.B.1 to B.52 on her bahalf. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record disolved the marriage by decree of divorce. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner therein preferred the present appeal.
3. Petitioner mainly contended that the main ground for seeking divorce is that respondent herein wrongly stated about her age, caste and name and it amounts to physical and mental 2 cruelty. Except the self serving evidence of the respondent herein, there is absolutely no evidence to prove the said allegations by P.W.1. Even if the allegations are true, the petitioner himself had condoned the same further in his evidence as P.W.1 he has admitted that respondent is seven years younger than him. Respondent submits that she has clearly stated all the true facts about her age, caste, name and education and after getting satisfied only petitioner married her. The Court below is not justified in disbelieving the evidence of R.W.3 who is the brother of respondent, R.W.2 who is sister of respondent. Petitioner stated that respondent used to cook food in the house but not to the taste of the petitioner. The allegation that the petitioner is a strict vegetarian is not true since respondent has clearly stated that the petitioner is in the habit of consuming non-veg food also. The finding of the Court below is that the petitioner caused mental and physical harassment is more imaginary than real and petitioner cannot take advantage of his own acts of desertion. While granting divorce petitioner did not returned the articles of the respondent and did not provide maintenance and permanent alimony. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the judgment passed by the Family Court.
3
4. The parties herein are referred as petitioner/husband and respondent/wife arraigned in the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
5. The marriage of the petitioner with respondent was performed on 19.11.1999 at Malkajgiri, immediately after the marriage of petitioner's sister. The petitioner got printed the invitation cards both for himself and on behalf of the respondent on his own accord and help the respondent. The petitioner distributed the cards on his behalf. But later he came to know that the respondent did not distribute the invitation cards so that the relatives and friends of the respondent did not attend the marriage function. After registration of their marriage respondent disclosed to the petitioner that her real name was K.Yadamma, but not K.Y.Lakshmi and admitted that she played mischief and she also disclosed that she does not belong to Brahmin Community and did not disclose her true community, caste, and other particulars.
6. The petitioner contended that the respondent was rude in her behavior and was never cooperative with the petitioner and she used to cook food for herself and used to bring non- vegetarian food from outside and taking it in the presence of the petitioner even though the petitioner objected to it since he is a 4 strict vegetarian. It was further contended that the respondent developed a close rapport with the first wife of the petitioner. The influence of the first wife has poisoned the mind of the respondent and the respondent used to frequently visit the house of the first wife of the petitioner without his knowledge and as a result frequent quarrels occurred between petitioner and respondent which resulted a kind of aversion between the petitioner and respondent. On 04.03.2000 on Maha Sivarathri day, the respondent has left the company of the petitioner without any reasonable cause and had taken away all her belongings, articles and jewellery which has been purchased by the petitioner and went to her brother's house at Nallakunta. Thereafter, the respondent used to make calls every day to the house of petitioner and threatening that she would initiate criminal action against him unless the house property of the petitioner is transferred in the name of the respondent and she informed that she became pregnant and even threatened the petitioner that she would get abortion and make the petitioner responsible for it and would implicate him under medico legal case.
7. The petitioner sent a lawyer notice dated 18.04.2000 reiterating the above facts and seeking consent for mutual 5 divorce. The respondent also sent a reply notice dated 22.04.2000. Subsequently, the petitioner had come to know through the contents of Police complaint lodged by respondent during October, 2000, that the respondent lost her pregnancy few months after her deserting the petitioner. The attitude of the respondent herein is adamant and she is bent upon harassing the petitioner for no fault of him. In these circumstances, he filed the petition for judicial separation. As a counter blast respondent filed criminal case under Sections 498-A, 406, 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'DP Act') and the same is registered and numbered as C.C.No.373/2000. The petitioner realized that instead of pursuing judicial separation it would be better to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and respondent and as such the petitioner has withdrawn the said OP and filed the present case for divorce.
8. The respondent filed counter denying the allegations mentioned in the petition, except admitting the marriage took place between both of them. Respondent stated that she had no knowledge that petitioner already married Smt.Naga Laxmi Kumari and respondent has also no knowledge regarding petitioner approaching Family Court and obtaining order of 6 divorce and she also no knowledge about the petitioner got two minor children through the said Naga Laxmi Kumari. The petitioner even has not mentioned in previous petition i.e., in O.P.No.216/2000 regarding said children. It was further denied by the respondent that petitioner had given a paper advertisement seeking to marriage alliance. But the petitioner has suppressed the facts of having two daughters through his first wife. Respondent further stated that petitioner wrote a letter to respondent stating that he was interested in marrying this respondent.
9. She denied that the petitioner purchased gold, silver, clothes items worth about Rs.23,000/- for the respondent before the marriage apart from bearing marriage expenses and also incurred all the expenditure of marriage although it was very simple. The respondent has stated to the petitioner regarding her caste before marriage only and petitioner has agreed to marry respondent on informing regarding her caste. It was further denied that respondent could not distribute the cards, as the petitioner given the wedding cards just few hours before the marriage. She denies that the petitioner is vegetarian. The petitioner takes non-vegetarian food. She also denies that she left the petitioner on 04.03.2000. 7
10. It was further denied by the respondent that the petitioner filed O.P.No.216 of 2000 before the Family Court for judicial separation with false allegations and on false grounds and stated that petitioner has withdrawn the said O.P.No.216 of 2000 after filing of counter by the respondent.
11. Respondent further stated that she is highly educated woman who has done her M.A., M.Phil (Ph.D), M.Sc, and LLB and also stated that she is working as an officer in National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad for the last 16 years. She further submits that petitioner stated that he is divorcee but suppressed the fact of having two daughters through his first wife and also suppressed the pendency of suit for custody of said children filed by him. Respondent further contended that petitioner induced the respondent by making false representation that he is interested only to marry her and also stated that he is not interested on the money of respondent. It was further contended that immediately after the marriage petitioner and his sister used to harass her demanding the entire salary of the respondent and they even did not give proper food and because of which the respondent became very weak and mentally depressed due to cruel acts of the petitioner and pregnancy of the respondent aborted. She further stated 8 that, petitioner dropped the respondent at her brother's house on 04.03.2000 by stating that respondent will not take her back to his matrimonial home unless and until the respondent full fill all demands of petitioner.
12. The main contention of the petitioner is that her date of birth was in the year 1955 as per school records, which acknowledges the fact that the age of respondent corresponding to the year 1999 is 45 years. But she has shown her age as 35 years as per Ex.A.1. If at all she was aged 45 years petitioner could not married her as she should have lost her menstrual course. The petitioner printed her educational qualification as (Ph.D) on his wedding invitation card i.e., Ex.B.46. But even after one year from the date of said marriage the educational qualification of respondent is shown as (Ph.D) as per Ex.B.7, and the said bracket acknowledges the fact that she is not qualified as Ph.D as on 03.10.2000. He further stated that respondent by making him to believe that she is 35 years old, vegetarian, Brahmin, and qualified as Ph.D. In fact she was reverse to those things and stated that it is clear case of cruelty. The petitioner has no documentary evidence regarding the caste, age, qualification of respondent as stated by him in the present petition and in rejoinder legal notice vide Ex.A.8 as on 9 01.05.2000. Since respondent deposed regarding her official age and caste during her cross-examination in 2008, basing on the same petitioner is entitled to nullify the said marriage between him and the respondent as per the provisions of Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It was further contended that she has not invited her own brother and sister to her marriage, misrepresented her name as K.Y.Lakshmi, and suppressed her official name i.e., K.Yadamma and she did not invite her relatives.
13. It was further contended by the petitioner that the date of matrimonial add given by petitioner is 25.04.1999 itself and the dates of purchase bills filed by the respondent as Ex.B.8 to B.20 which are prior to said date 25.04.1999, the respondent has no ground to say that petitioner insisted her to buy gold ornaments for the marriage. The documents filed as Ex.B.12 and Ex.B.13 are only cash estimates which do not reveals any purchase of gold item. The list of gold items as per Ex.A.7, are not genuine, and that the purchase bills filed as Ex.B.8 to B.13 are fabricated, Ex.B.50, reveals that the petitioner is strictly against dowry, and that the choice of the petitioner is only register marriage. The petitioner wanted to become father of a kid to 10 take his care during his old age, but the petitioner is cheated by the respondent in life.
14. R.W.6 stated that from Ex.B.25 the name of patient who undergone urine test and confirmed the pregnancy of one S.Y.Lakshmi. Respondent has left the company of petitioner on 04.03.2000, and the date of documents which are filed as Ex.B.22 to Ex.B.26, Ex.B.51 and Ex.B.52 are earlier to 04.03.2000 and said exhibits do not reveal that respondent got aborted of her alleged pregnancy. R.W.1 rejoined to duty after availing earned leave on 01.03.2000 as per Ex.B.44, and she was on office duty on 03.03.2000 as per Ex.B.45, since her leave commenced by prefixing the public holiday on 04.03.2000. R.W.1 was never conceived any viable pregnancy but misrepresented to the petitioner and to doctor that she missed monthly menstrual period because she conceived pregnancy, basing on the said misrepresentation by the R.W.1, the doctor R.W.6 treated her for pregnancy, hence same line of treatment is extended by other doctors. But Ex.B.36 shows that R.W.1 is treated for "loose motions" as in patient. If really R.W.1 aborted earlier to 23.03.2000, or even after 23.03.2000 she would have stated the same in her reply legal notice issued to petitioner which is dated as 22.04.2000 under Ex.A.7.
11
15. It is further contended that R.W.1 never offered even drinking water to the guests, and relatives of petitioner who so ever visited to the marital home and used to insult the petitioner in front of them, and at the same time insult them in front of petitioner.
16. R.W.2 is the younger sister of R.W.1, R.W.3 is brother of R.W.1, R.W.5 is the maid servant in the house of R.W.1 and R.W.6 is the doctor. It is clear that respondent is working as Officer in National Institute of Nutrition in Hyderabad whereas the petitioner was working as engineer in M/s.Ralchem Limited.
17. It was further stated by the petitioner that respondent filed criminal case against him and he faced to the said case nearly 8 years and also stated that respondent filed criminal revision case against him and it was dismissed.
18. It was admitted by the respondent that her name was mentioned as Yadamma in official and school records but she stated her name as K.Y.Lakshmi instead of Yadamma.
19. It was averred that without discussing the evidence of the witnesses at length the trial Court dissolved the marriage of the petitioner and respondent.
12
20. Now, it is for this Court to see whether the order of the Trial Court is on proper appreciation of facts or not.
21. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.Jayachandra vs Aneel Kaur 1 in Appeal (civil) 7763-7764 of 2004, that:
"The expression "cruelty" has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as willful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live. Cruelty, as noted above, includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of his spouse same is established and/or an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty. In delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. The concept, a proof beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife."
22. Petitioner and his first wife took divorce by mutual consent in O.P.No.375 of 1996 in O.P.No.1376 of 1995 dated 08.10.1996. As per Ex.A.1 name of the respondent was shown as K.Y.Lakshmi, Hindu, vegetarian, age as 35 years, occupation 1 (2005) 2 SCC 22 13 as Central Government employee as Gazetted Officer drawing salary of Rs.10,000/- per month, her qualification was shown as M.A, M.Phill (Ph.D), M.Sc(Zoo).
23. Under Ex.B.50 sister of the petitioner addressed a letter to the respondent on 11.05.1999 stated that her brother is B.E., P.G in Engineering, Ph.D in Mg Sc and is doing Ph.D in Engineering and also stated that he worked in State and Central Government undertakings earlier in North and Hyderabad and stated that presently he is working as Engineer in a limited company and is drawing Rs.12,000/- per month. He has a two bedroom apartment, he is aged about 40 years old and he has divorced on mutual consent basis and has no encumbrances and is strict vegetarian and further stated that he has four brothers and two sisters who are highly educated and no dowry is required and mentioned that registered marriage is preferred and finally requested the respondent to contact her brother for personal interview.
24. Basing on the above documents respondent contended that petitioner suppressed the fact of having two children through his wife and also pendency of the custody petition filed by him whereas petitioner stated that she suppressed the fact 14 about her age and caste as Brahmin but in the advertisement she has stated her community as Hindu, aged 35 years.
25. It is mainly contended by the petitioner that age of the respondent is 45 years as on the date of marriage and he intended to have children with her as she was aged 45 years she could not get children and thus stated that she cheated him by revealing false age. Even R.W.6 also stated that her age was shown as 45 years and she would not be treated for pregnancy.
26. Both the petitioner and respondent did not reveal all the facts before the marriage as such immediately after the marriage disputes arise between them. Respondent in her letter stated that she is vegetarian but in fact she is non-vegetarian. She stated that petitioner is also non-vegetarian. But as per the letter addressed by sister of the petitioner it clearly shows that petitioner is vegetarian. Petitioner further stated though she was working in National Institute of Nutrition she wrongly mentioned the place of work to him this clearly shows that there was no clear communication regarding important facts like age, occupation and income etc., before the marriage by both the parties. Both of them suppressed certain facts to each other and the basic foundation of marriage is belief on each other which was shattered with the suppression of facts. Immediately 15 after the marriage and there was no clear understanding between the couple and they started blaming each other they made allegations and counter allegations against each other though both of them are highly qualified they could not live happily after the marriage.
27. Petitioner contended that respondent wrongly stated her qualification as Ph.D as such he printed the same in the wedding card but in her letter she stated her qualification in the brackets only he misunderstood the same and attributed the falsehood to the respondent. Though respondent stated that she conceived but her pregnancy was aborted it was not believed by the petitioner. Though the actual name of the respondent was Yadamma as per official and school records for the reasons best known to her she mentioned her name as K.Y.Lakshmi and also her age as 35 years and it clearly amounts to mischief on her part.
28. This Court is of the view that the trial Court discussed the evidence and examined each of the witnesses at length and rightly dissolved the marriage between the parties on the ground of cruelty and assertion and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said judgment.
16
29. In the result, the Family Court Appeal is dismissed, confirming the Order of the trial Court dated 09.02.2012 in O.P.No.216 of 2008 passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad and the marriage between the parties is dissolved by a decree of divorce. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN _________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATE:15.03.2024 Bw